One Million Moms Want Same-Sex Archie Comic Out of Toys 'R' Us

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

artanis_neravar:

Volf:

artanis_neravar:
Well then you are even more in the wrong, censorship is not your right. And trying to force your censorship on the rest of the country is wrong. And before you ask, you are wrong because you are trying to force censorship, I am right for opposing censor ship. That is where the difference lies. When your "right to decide what your children see" starts to affect what my kids have available to them, it starts to infringe on my same right. If:
Parent A - Wants to remove item A
Parent B - Feels their kids should be allowed to see item A

the two choices are
Item A is banned
Parent A - Their kids will never see it - They get what they want
Parent B - Their kids will never see it - They don't get what they want

Item B is not banned
Parent A - keeps their kid away from item A, their kid doesn't see it - They get what they want
Parent B - Their kid can see item A - They get what they want

So then what about porn? Do you feel so strongly that kids should be exposed to that as well?

I do not, but porn is still available, I would never try to force people to stop making porn, it's not my place. And I will point you back to my earlier point about porn, and request that you drop your straw man argument and come up with something real.

Not gonna happen, the man is an ignorant Nazi.

Crono1973:

Pyrian:

Crono1973:
The people who don't accept homosexuality are now the outcasts.

Hate is a choice.

There's plenty of that on both sides. The pro-homosexual side often refers to the other side as bigots, that's hate going the other way.

So describing a bigot with the word "bigot" is inherently hateful?

anthony87:

Volf:

Realitycrash:

Then parents can vote with their wallets and go somewhere else?
If Toys R Us released a new GI-Joe action-figure, why should we allow that? Should parents have a say too? How about an easy-bake oven? Should parents have a say there?

No? Because these things aren't "offensive"? Well, neither is homosexuality.

wrong, some people find homosexual marriage "offensive" when comparing it to heterosexual marriage, they have a right to voice their opinion just as much as anybody else.

That's all well and good.

Doesn't mean they're not wrong though.

yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

so kid,s don,t get the concept of two people of the same sex loving each other?
or is it BECAUSE you don,t like it. I hate homophobia but I hate it even more if people use lame ass excuses.(IE religion,think of the children etc.) just say "I don,t like gay people" is it that hard to say?

Volf:

anthony87:

Volf:
wrong, some people find homosexual marriage "offensive" when comparing it to heterosexual marriage, they have a right to voice their opinion just as much as anybody else.

That's all well and good.

Doesn't mean they're not wrong though.

yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

No it's not, because by that logic the opinion of Hitler, the SS and the entire Nazi party was just as valid as the people they murdered. If your opinion is based on ignorance then it is wrong. Plain and simple.

Volf:

anthony87:

Volf:
wrong, some people find homosexual marriage "offensive" when comparing it to heterosexual marriage, they have a right to voice their opinion just as much as anybody else.

That's all well and good.

Doesn't mean they're not wrong though.

yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

Their opinion is valid but they're still wrong.

I must've missed the update when the meaning of "Opinion" became "Magic shield-world that prevents people from being wrong". I could say that it's my opinion that dog shite tastes nice. That'd my opinion but it'd also be wrong because dog shite doesn't taste nice.

Tree man:

Volf:

Realitycrash:

I'm sorry, how is it hypocritical? If you refer to "Well, Porn isn't allowed!", well, that's because we got laws that say "No, you can't have that". There is no law against displaying two men getting married in a way that children can see it. There is one against displaying pornographic material, though.

Okey, well, actually, when I think about it, there isn't one (as far as I know) that is against displaying racist material to children. So go ahead. If you wanna print up a neo-nazi comic and manage to get Toys R Us to shelve it, I will support your right. Then me and pretty much everyone else will get it removed by appealing to standards of decency.

What, you think gay-marriage isn't "decent standard"? Fair enough. Too bad most people are changing their views now. I.e: Your standards are shit out of luck.

I never said it wasn't "decent", so cut with the strawman.

If anything, it's controversial.

No, it's not controversial, it's your ignorance and idiocy in thinking that because some people love those of the same gender they are in some way shameful that makes you want to think it is.

This comic has two people in love, if they were black it wouldn't matter, if they were teens or OAP's it wouldn't matter. Get the barge pole you have rammed up your pretentious asshole and grow the fuck up.

Children see far worse than men holding hands, they hear far worse than 'gay marriage' and they know much more about the world than you give then credit for. In the immortal words of one of the greats 'your road is rapidly fading, get out of the new if you can't lend your hand'

Your opinion is not worth the same as other peoples, if a electrician and a plumber were asked to fix a light socket you will always take the word of the electrician because he has relevant information on the subject.

The same can be said here, you have no relevant information, only ignorance and bigotry, and before you dare come along with a 'everyone's opinion is the same' in some pathetic excuse to deny the truth of the above then think of the Nazi's.

They hated gays as well, in my eyes, and the eyes of millions of other rational, educated and morally superior people around the world the Nazi's are scum and you, in your ignorance and bigotry are no better.

Now try to convey your point without name calling and act more civil.

Seeing as how this is about what children should be exposed to, my opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

Volf:

Realitycrash:

Volf:
My point still stands about the "depriving" comment.

No, it doesn't. We live in a capitalistic system. Peoples right to express an opinion does not equal their right to censure a private-owned corporation. You can't say "My opinion is that X-business is bad, and thus, I want it removed/censured/shut down" unless there is enough of you to either A: Get a law passed, or B: Make a capitalistic pressure (i.e voting with your wallets) large enough to get the corp to change their mind.
So, good luck.

Yes it does, the depriving comment is hypocritical and that is what I was pointing out.

Volf:

artanis_neravar:
Don't buy it for them, it's that simple and as I explained, sexually explicit material is different, it is eye catching, and it raises questions, especially if the child has never been exposed to anything sexual in nature, whereas marriage is such a public concept, that the children (if they know what marriage is) will see it as two people married, and may ask why two men are married, but only if it has been established that marriage is only between a man and a women. And if they don't know what marriage is then all they will see is two people holding hands and smiling.

I'm not asking for the comics to be removed, I would ask that the comics don't cover the subject.

Why is your opinion more important then other peoples? You feel a certain way, and that in no way gives you the right to control who other people are. Kids need to learn what the world is like and clearly the comic writers/producers feel the same way. They released a product in line with that philosophy and you have every right not to buy it. You say that people don't think it is equal to heterosexual marriage, what makes them right and us wrong? By the same token I could argue that bibles shouldn't be printed because I disagree with its contents. People need to get over themselves and accept that they are not the arbiters of what is right or wrong for anyone other then themselves and their own kids.

anthony87:

Volf:

anthony87:

That's all well and good.

Doesn't mean they're not wrong though.

yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

Their opinion is valid but they're still wrong.

I must've missed the update when the meaning of "Opinion" became "Magic shield-world that prevents people from being wrong". I could say that it's my opinion that dog shite tastes nice. That'd my opinion but it'd also be wrong because dog shite doesn't taste nice.

this is an opinion on what children should be exposed to, and on this subject it is gray, not black and white.

The sad part, these women will take their kids to the grocery store and the kids read the headlines in cosmo about improving your sex life and endless tabloid headlines while waiting, and not think about what they're exposing their kids to there.

legend forge:
for the comics to be removed, I would ask that the comics don't cover the subject.

Why is your opinion more important then other peoples? You feel a certain way, and that in no way gives you the right to control who other people are.[/quote] I believe I already retracted my comment about censorship.

legend forge:
Kids need to learn what the world is like and clearly the comic writers/producers feel the same way. They released a product in line with that philosophy and you have every right not to buy it. You say that people don't think it is equal to heterosexual marriage, what makes them right and us wrong? By the same token I could argue that bibles shouldn't be printed because I disagree with its contents. People need to get over themselves and accept that they are not the arbiters of what is right or wrong for anyone other then themselves and their own kids.

Fair enough, and a good point

Volf:

anthony87:

Volf:
yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

Their opinion is valid but they're still wrong.

I must've missed the update when the meaning of "Opinion" became "Magic shield-world that prevents people from being wrong". I could say that it's my opinion that dog shite tastes nice. That'd my opinion but it'd also be wrong because dog shite doesn't taste nice.

this is an opinion on what children should be exposed to, and on this subject it is gray, not black and white.

What's gray about it? It's a very stupid idea to hide a kid from a concept that exists all over the world. Instead of sheltering their kids, these bigoted mothers should be explaining to them that some men like men and some women like women.

I really surprised this comic exists at all! I didn't know archie comics were trying to be progressive I always assumed they lived in some 50s television style of reality. Good on the author though now toys r us just needs to follow through.

anthony87:

Volf:
yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

Their opinion is valid but they're still wrong.

I must've missed the update when the meaning of "Opinion" became "Magic shield-world that prevents people from being wrong". I could say that it's my opinion that dog shite tastes nice. That'd my opinion but it'd also be wrong because dog shite doesn't taste nice.

That's a rather bad example, since taste is inherently subjective. One could make an argument that shit doesn't taste good to a majority of the human population, but it's certainly possible that someone out there is born with taste buds that say otherwise. ^^;

But, yes, it's true that not every opinion is born equal. Some opinions are informed, whilst others are based on prejudice or misinformation. Stating something as an opinion doesn't make it immune to criticism.

JediMB:

Crono1973:

Pyrian:
Hate is a choice.

There's plenty of that on both sides. The pro-homosexual side often refers to the other side as bigots, that's hate going the other way.

So describing a bigot with the word "bigot" is inherently hateful?

Not inherently but certainly implied in many cases.

Isn't it funny how both sides think the other side is both hateful and intolerant while thinking their side is not.

I would also say that both sides have been TAUGHT to think the way they think. Pro-homosexual people are a product of modern indoctrination while anti-homosexual people are products of religious and past cultural beliefs. Of course, there are always exceptions.

I find it fascinating to watch this shift in culture, 5 years ago this much support for homosexuality was unheard of. In 5 more, where will we be?

anthony87:

What's gray about it? It's a very stupid idea to hide a kid from a concept that exists all over the world. Instead of sheltering their kids, these bigoted mothers should be explaining to them that some men like men and some women like women.

The ideas about what subjects children should be exposed to differ from person to person, society to society, and era to era. What one person thinks should be withheld from the eyes of children, another person feels that children should be exposed to. To give a example that doesn't deal with this comic, think about religion, some people don't want there kids exposed to it, while others think that children should go to Church as often as possible. Hence my comment that, what children should be exposed to is really a grey area.

Tree man:

Volf:

anthony87:

That's all well and good.

Doesn't mean they're not wrong though.

yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

No it's not, because by that logic the opinion of Hitler, the SS and the entire Nazi party was just as valid as the people they murdered. If your opinion is based on ignorance then it is wrong. Plain and simple.

Godwins law, really? Couldn't resist could you?

Volf:

anthony87:

Volf:
yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

Their opinion is valid but they're still wrong.

I must've missed the update when the meaning of "Opinion" became "Magic shield-world that prevents people from being wrong". I could say that it's my opinion that dog shite tastes nice. That'd my opinion but it'd also be wrong because dog shite doesn't taste nice.

this is an opinion on what children should be exposed to, and on this subject it is gray, not black and white.

And that's like trying to "protect" your children from seeing and knowing what lightning is. You could say it's because you think lightning is dangerous, but it's still wildly irrational to not let them know about it and that it isn't an inherently bad thing.

Tree man:

artanis_neravar:

Volf:
So then what about porn? Do you feel so strongly that kids should be exposed to that as well?

I do not, but porn is still available, I would never try to force people to stop making porn, it's not my place. And I will point you back to my earlier point about porn, and request that you drop your straw man argument and come up with something real.

Not gonna happen, the man is an ignorant Nazi.

really? I'm curious as to how my Jewish family would feel about me being a Nazi. Stop the name calling.

JediMB:

Volf:

anthony87:

Their opinion is valid but they're still wrong.

I must've missed the update when the meaning of "Opinion" became "Magic shield-world that prevents people from being wrong". I could say that it's my opinion that dog shite tastes nice. That'd my opinion but it'd also be wrong because dog shite doesn't taste nice.

this is an opinion on what children should be exposed to, and on this subject it is gray, not black and white.

And that's like trying to "protect" your children from seeing and knowing what lightning is. You could say it's because you think lightning is dangerous, but it's still wildly irrational to not let them know about it and that it isn't an inherently bad thing.

The subject of homosexual marriage is still controversial, and its not at all like lighting.

OneMillionMoms, proof genocide doesn't need to be a bad thing :)

But seriously, respect to the CEO for standing his ground on the issue.
In my opinion anyone who is unable to tolerate or explain a gay marriage lacks the brains or maturity to raise kids.

Pyrian:
Hate is a choice.

Crono1973:
The pro-homosexual side often refers to the other side as bigots, that's hate going the other way.

How can something so simple sail so completely over your head? The distinction isn't hate or not hate. The distinction is between hating people for their innocence: their race, their gender, their orientation - versus hating people for their guilt: their conscious adult decisions to despise such innocence.

"Tolerance" does not necessarily include tolerance for intolerance, and it takes a remarkable simplicity of perspective to think it should. I.e., somehow it's mostly the intolerant who think there should be "tolerance for intolerance", which is odd given that they don't have much tolerance in the first place, so what do they know about it? They're not even for it, except with respect to themselves.

It's hypocritical to demand to be treated X when your problem is that you don't treat people X. It's not hypocritical to demand that people who Y aren't exempt from Y. These are not equivalents.

Volf:
not accepting and hating something are not always the same thing.

First, see above; it's not really a relevant, as replacing one with the other doesn't change the terms of the distinction. Second, they are closely related, as either, when applied to groups of people, quickly leads to the other.

Volf:
The subject of homosexual marriage is still controversial, and its not at all like lighting.

It is exactly like lightning in that knowing of its existence and being informed about it is in no way harmful.

Controversy has no bearing. It simply means that it is a subject of debate.

Pyrian:

Pyrian:
Hate is a choice.

Crono1973:
The pro-homosexual side often refers to the other side as bigots, that's hate going the other way.

How can something so simple sail so completely over your head? The distinction isn't hate or not hate. The distinction is between hating people for their innocence: their race, their gender, their orientation - versus hating people for their guilt: their conscious adult decisions to despise such innocence.

"Tolerance" does not necessarily include tolerance for intolerance, and it takes a remarkable simplicity of perspective to think it should. I.e., somehow it's mostly the intolerant who think there should be "tolerance for intolerance", which is odd given that they don't have much tolerance in the first place, so what do they know about it? They're not even for it, except with respect to themselves.

It's hypocritical to demand to be treated X when your problem is that you don't treat people X. It's not hypocritical to demand that people who Y aren't exempt from Y. These are not equivalents.

Volf:
not accepting and hating something are not always the same thing.

First, see above; it's not really a relevant, as replacing one with the other doesn't change the terms of the distinction. Second, they are closely related, as either, when applied to groups of people, quickly leads to the other.

Then I guess I'm the exception because I don't accept it, but I realize that they are people too, so I don't hate them either.

There is nothing wrong with Gay Marriage, there is nothing wrong with a man loving another man, same with women. It does not affect your life personally if a gay marriage happens, the world is not ending because your close minded way of thinking is being "violated". If you don't want your kids exposed to something that is becoming more and more common by the second despite your feeble, failed attempts to stop it. Don't buy it, don't look at it, don't go to the store that sells it. You have no right to censor something another person has made or stop someone from living their own lifestyle. We are not in the past anymore, this is 2012, get over yourself and keep your nose and your religion out of other people's business.

JediMB:

Volf:
The subject of homosexual marriage is still controversial, and its not at all like lighting.

It is exactly like lightning in that knowing of its existence and being informed about it is in no way harmful.

Controversy has no bearing. It simply means that it is a subject of debate.

I'm not going to indulge your strawman.

Volf:

JediMB:

Volf:
The subject of homosexual marriage is still controversial, and its not at all like lighting.

It is exactly like lightning in that knowing of its existence and being informed about it is in no way harmful.

Controversy has no bearing. It simply means that it is a subject of debate.

I'm not going to indulge your strawman.

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

All I'm saying is that if there is no harm in being informed about X, there is no reason to withhold information about X.

JediMB:

Volf:

JediMB:

It is exactly like lightning in that knowing of its existence and being informed about it is in no way harmful.

Controversy has no bearing. It simply means that it is a subject of debate.

I'm not going to indulge your strawman.

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

All I'm saying is that if there is no harm in being informed about X, there is no reason to withhold information about X.

Your arguing against informing people about lighting, something I never even mentioned.

How can something so simple sail so completely over your head? The distinction isn't hate or not hate. The distinction is between hating people for their innocence: their race, their gender, their orientation - versus hating people for their guilt: their conscious adult decisions to despise such innocence.

So YOU say. I say it's two sides of the same coin. Two sets of opposing beliefs, one set widely taught in the past and present and a newer one being taught now and in the future. Look at the bigger picture. In a hundred years, homosexuality will be completely accepted while 100 years ago, it was completely rejected. We are in transition.

"Tolerance" does not necessarily include tolerance for intolerance, and it takes a remarkable simplicity of perspective to think it should. I.e., somehow it's mostly the intolerant who think there should be "tolerance for intolerance", which is odd given that they don't have much tolerance in the first place, so what do they know about it? They're not even for it, except with respect to themselves.

You're talking in circles trying to explain how intolerance isn't really intolerance when it comes from your side.

Intolerance has it's purposes, we are intolerant of slavery today and that's ok.

It's hypocritical to demand to be treated X when your problem is that you don't treat people X. It's not hypocritical to demand that people who Y aren't exempt from Y. These are not equivalents.

More about how your side is "holier than thou". It just isn't true. See it for what it is, your opponents think your opinion is wrong and you think the same of their opinion. As a result both sides are intolerant of the other because...well, this is just too obvious...they are opposites.

Volf:

artanis_neravar:

Volf:
Don't see the problem, parents should be able to limit what their kids see.

And they can, buy not taking them to Toys R Us, not taking them in the check out lines with the comic in it, or any number of other simple fixes, but they do not have the right to deprive my kids of something that they find offensive.

Nobody is "depriving" you of anything, but why does your opinion have more value to it then mine? I don't like something, but I just have to deal with it, but if the tables are turned, now I'm "depriving" you of something? Hypocritical much?

artanis_neravar:
And before you or anyone else tries to bring in an argument relating this to porn, or other over the top subjects, they are completely different situations.

I didn't bring up the subject, but now that you have, why is this different? I realize its not the same thing as them seeing porn, but what if I don't agree that this is a subject I want young children to be exposed to? How is this different from that? While porn and homosexual marriage are not the same thing, they are two subjects that I don't think young children should be exposed to.

artanis_neravar:
Seeing two people in sexual acts is something that the kid has not been exposed to, and exposing them to it in the wrong way can alter their perception of the act, whereas two men getting married is the same exact thing as a male and a female getting married, and can be explained the same way that you explained your own marriage. And if you have never talked to your kid about marriage, or they don't know what marriage is then the cover won't bring up any questions because there would be nothing strange about it.

Again, what about those of us that don't think homosexual marriage is the same thing as heterosexual marriage? Why should we have children's material deal with this subject if we don't want to have them exposed to it?

If you don't want your kids exposed to the real world, don't bring them into a toy store. In fact, don't bring them outside at all. Unfortunately, you have the right to shelter your kids from anything you want, but that doesn't mean you can tell others what to do or what to sell.

Volf:
wrong, some people find homosexual marriage "offensive" when comparing it to heterosexual marriage, they have a right to voice their opinion just as much as anybody else.

So I should be able to voice the opinion that all black people are assholes who ruin everything else, and deserve death sentences all around, wait, what is the officer doing? Why am I in jail?

You might not get at what I'm saying, but if you have a opinion of something being offensive or wrong, but you say it to someone who is for that specific thing, then you just started a argument. Kinda like if you have a opinion of a bigoted asshole, then expect to be pointed out for being a bigoted asshole. I know you yourself isn't saying its offensive, I'm just wanting to point out that you can voice your opinion, but don't expect people to accept your opinion of its bigoted bullshit.

That was a neat article, doesn't 1 Mil Moms have something else to do, like be completely submissive like the great old holy old testament book say they should? I'm only half kidding on that, honestly. But seriously, is it just a slow news day for them to decide to attack a comic for the front cover?

Andy Chalk:
This is the last place a parent would expect to be confronted with questions from their children on topics that are too complicated for them to understand.

This is the most fucking retard thing in the entire statement, not only is it a laughably obvious cover for the fact that they just hate homosexuals, it's also complete and utter bullshit.

A man loving another man isn't "too complicated" for children to understand, it's pretty fucking simple.

. This is the last place a parent would expect to be confronted with questions from their children on topics that are too complicated for them to understand.

There is no facepalm big enough!

To be fair, the mom's are not so much protesting gay-marriage as they are protesting exposing children to the concept of it at a young age. Thus it is less about the rights of consenting adults and more about the psychological impact on children.

Crono1973:
Isn't it funny how both sides think the other side is both hateful and intolerant while thinking their side is not.

As has been brought up by someone else as well, there's quite the difference between being intolerant of a person's attributes and being intolerant of a person's intolerance.

Intolerance of intolerance, so to speak, helps in eliminating intolerance. When there's no base intolerance to not tolerate anymore, that resulting intolerance vanishes.

Meanwhile, being tolerant of intolerance can is counterproductive as it lets said intolerance flourish.

That said, it's quite possible to be intolerant of a person's intolerance without hating or being intolerant of the person.

Crono1973:
I would also say that both sides have been TAUGHT to think the way they think. Pro-homosexual people are a product of modern indoctrination while anti-homosexual people are products of religious and past cultural beliefs. Of course, there are always exceptions.

"Pro-homosexual" isn't entirely accurate, really. The term makes it sound like everyone with the label believes people should be homosexual, when it's really a matter of thinking that people should simply be allowed to be who they are.

These thoughts have their origins in critical thinking and analysis, which stands in stark contrast to the anti-homosexual agenda which has it roots in religious dogma, fear, outdated societal needs, and indoctrination. Religion doesn't want critical thinking, because religion doesn't want to be questioned, as it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and the same goes for the anti-homosexual ideas conveyed through it.

Crono1973:
I find it fascinating to watch this shift in culture, 5 years ago this much support for homosexuality was unheard of. In 5 more, where will we be?

Funny thing? I grew up in a small town known to its surroundings for its racist rednecks. I found out about homosexuality basically through some friend or other who said that it's when guy falls in love with or wants to have sex with another guy. I was pretty clueless, and no one had told me if there was anything good or bad about this.

A few years later, a friend of mine said he was gay. I didn't care. He was my friend, and I saw no reason to think any differently of him than I had earlier. Was this indoctrination, or simply a natural neutral state?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here